<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Cathy Young</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/cathy_young/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 00:22:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What we owe Xena</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/09/15/xena_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/09/15/xena_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2005/09/15/xena</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ten years ago the Warrior Princess stormed the small screen, leading the way for the "girl power" that followed.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I'm not sure when I first heard about "Xena: Warrior Princess," or when I first tuned in to see what it was all about. I remember watching reruns on the SciFi Channel and being drawn by the show's unique balance of dark drama and wacky comedy, the fights that mixed gritty realism with stylized martial arts, the reinvention of ancient history and myth combined with snappy modern dialogue -- and the characters, above all Xena herself. </p><p>There was something different about this show and its hero. Eventually, after watching a sixth-season episode that made me curious about story lines I had missed, I went on the Internet to catch up, and fell in love. </p><p> This month marks the 10th anniversary of the first time Xena rode onto America's television screens. Actually, not quite the first: the Warrior Princess, played by New Zealand's Lucy Lawless, had debuted several months earlier on "Xena's" parent show, "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys," as an evil warlord (warlady?) plotting to kill the great Hercules. This first incarnation of Xena was less a true warrior than a femme fatale who kicked ass. Still, the character appealed to viewers and producers alike: Originally meant to turn good, have a fling with Hercules, and die at the end of a thee-episode arc, Xena got a reprieve and a show of her own. For the next six years, she battled on, conquered the syndicated action/adventure market and changed history -- the history of the world in the Xenaverse and the history of popular culture in real life. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/09/15/xena_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/09/15/xena_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How much should we know about the sex life of Kobe Bryant&#8217;s accuser?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2004/03/27/rape_shield/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2004/03/27/rape_shield/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Violence Against Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2004/03/26/rape_shield</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rape shield laws were created to protect victims from having their sex lives used against them in court. But where's the line between protections for victims and the constitutional rights of defendants?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Wednesday, the 19-year-old woman who accuses basketball star Kobe Bryant of raping her took the stand at a pretrial hearing in the Eagle County, Colo., courthouse. Apart from the usual explosive mix of sex and celebrity, the case has also generated heated debate about the rape shield laws that protect the accuser's sexual history. The purpose of the closed-door hearing was to determine what, if any, parts of this history could be admitted into evidence at the trial. </p><p>The tactics of Bryant's defense team, which has demanded access to the young woman's mental health records and suggested that she had sex with three different partners in the days before and after the alleged rape, have been roundly deplored by feminists and victims' rights advocates. In New York Newsday, writer Lorraine Dusky has slammed defense attorney Pamela Mackey for "amoral antics." Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor who teaches at the New England School of Law and appears regularly on television, charges that the defense has exploited misogynistic myths about rape accusers -- "that women are mentally ill, and vindictive, and lie for sport." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2004/03/27/rape_shield/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2004/03/27/rape_shield/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Secrets and lies</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/05/03/affirmative_action_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/05/03/affirmative_action_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2001 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/05/03/affirmative_action</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The most pernicious thing about racial preferences is the culture of concealment that they spawn.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fortunes of affirmative action seem to be at their lowest ebb since President Johnson first invoked the phrase 36 years ago, in an executive order banning discrimination in hiring. In recent years, race-conscious policies intended to increase the representation of blacks and Hispanics in higher education and in public employment have been abandoned by some leading universities, outlawed by voter initiatives in California and Washington state and wounded by court rulings across the country. </p><p>The latest setback took place in Michigan late in March. Judge Bernard Friedman of the U.S. District Court in Detroit <a target="new" href="http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/JudgesOpinions/Friedman/baf97-cv-75928.pdf">ruled</a> that the admissions system at the University of Michigan Law School was illegal because it favored black and Hispanic applicants. The decision, the implementation of which is on hold pending appeals, came less than four months after another federal judge in Detroit, Patrick Duggan, handed defenders of affirmative action a rare victory, <a target="new" href="http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/gratz_v_bollinger_SJ_opinion.PDF">upholding</a> the university's even more race-conscious undergraduate admissions policies. One or both cases could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court -- which, given its current leanings, may well deliver a death blow to racial and ethnic preferences in college admissions. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/05/03/affirmative_action_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/05/03/affirmative_action_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sex and science</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/04/12/science_women/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/04/12/science_women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Academia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2001/04/12/science_women</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Are women discriminated against in the lab? Or are gender imbalances due to intellectual differences?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These days, it's not unusual to see women's names attached to major scientific discoveries. The team of physicists who succeeded in stopping a light beam earlier this year was headed by Harvard professor Lene Hau; astronomer Wendy Freedman was one of the three leaders of the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project, which measured the expansion rate of the universe. </p><p>Nevertheless, science remains an overwhelmingly male field: At some leading research institutions, the percentage of women faculty in science departments is still in the single digits. </p><p>Now, as the New York Times reports in its quarterly <a target="new" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/education/08ED-FEMI.html">Education Life</a> supplement, a movement that seeks to remedy bias against women in science is sweeping universities. </p><p> But is this effort, which the Times says could "change the face of science education," based on facts or myth? And is it championing gender justice or gender politics? </p><p>A major victory for proponents of women in science occurred in late January when top administrators and professors from nine major universities -- including Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Stanford -- met at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for a symposium on gender equity in science and engineering. They issued a terse though vague statement recognizing that "barriers still exist" and pledging to work for change. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/04/12/science_women/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/04/12/science_women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One good reason to vote for Bush</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/27/social_security_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/27/social_security_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2000/10/27/social_security</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Social Security is on its last legs, and the limited privatization backed by the GOP candidate can save it. But Al Gore won't even admit there's a problem.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This year, <a href="/directory/topics/social_security/">Social Security</a> turns 65, the retirement age set by its own rules -- a milestone rich with ironic symbolism at a time when a growing chorus calls for retiring the system itself. Moving from a government system to private retirement accounts was once a fringe libertarian fantasy. Now, partial privatization of Social Security is a mainstream Republican proposal. In a mostly lackluster, idea-free presidential race, Social Security reform is one issue that highlights a basic philosophical divide between the two candidates. It's also at least one good reason to root for <a href="/directory/topics/george_w_bush/">George W. Bush.</a> </p><p>The grandmother of all middle-class entitlements, Social Security is undoubtedly the most popular government program in America, credited with dramatically reducing old-age poverty. Yet it has a major structural flaw that you don't need to be a whiz to grasp. The people who work and pay into the system are financing the benefits of today's retirees while relying on the next generation of workers to fund their future benefits. However, there are fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more beneficiaries -- both because people are living longer and staying around to collect the checks, and because birth rates fell sharply after 1960. In 1950, the ratio of workers to pensioners was 16 to 1; today, it's 3.3 to 1, and in 25 years it's projected to drop to 2 to 1. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/10/27/social_security_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/27/social_security_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A man&#8217;s right to choose</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2000/10/19/mens_choice</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is it fair that women have reproductive rights while men have reproductive responsibilities?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the wake of the Food and Drug Administration's recent approval of the abortion drug RU-486, there were familiar arguments about a woman's right to choose vs. the unborn child's right to life, as well as speculation about ways in which the drug would change the terrain of the abortion wars. As usual, though, these discussions completely ignored one group of people who still have no legal voice in decisions about having -- or not having -- children. </p><p> They're called men. </p><p>It is widely assumed by activists on both sides of the debate that legal abortion puts women on equal footing with men, giving them the same freedom to enjoy sex without consequences. Actually, when sex results in conception, the man and the woman find themselves on very unequal footing. </p><p> If she does not want to be a mother, a woman can end the pregnancy, with or without her partner's knowledge. (It's hard to tell how RU-486 will affect a woman's ability to exclude the man from her decision; a drug-induced abortion at home may be more private and less invasive than surgery at a clinic, but it's not easy to hide from an intimate partner.) </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dr. Bad News</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/03/wallerstein/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/03/wallerstein/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2000 19:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/tues/2000/10/03/wallerstein</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After conducting a massive 25-year study, Judith Wallerstein concludes that children of divorce are hit hardest after they grow up.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Judith Wallerstein's 1989 book, "Second Chances: Men, Women and Children a Decade After Divorce," made headlines and sparked controversy with its claim that the effects of divorce on children were more harmful than was generally supposed at the time. Most conservatives saw this pronouncement as a long-overdue rediscovery of old-fashioned common sense; many feminists, as an attempt to revive traditional norms especially oppressive to women. (Wallerstein rated a dishonorable mention in Susan Faludi's 1991 tome, "Backlash.") For better or worse, "Second Chances" most likely helped nudge the cultural climate toward a more judgmental view of divorce, at least where young children were involved. </p><p>The newest book from the 78-year-old family therapist, coauthored by Julia Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee, is unlikely to calm any nerves. "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study" delivers the bad news that the wounds of divorce are not healed by time: Indeed, Wallerstein writes, "it's in adulthood that children of divorce suffer the most." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/10/03/wallerstein/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/03/wallerstein/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Medical gender wars</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/09/20/womens_health/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/09/20/womens_health/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breast cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/20/womens_health</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First came the whining feminists. Next, the inevitable male backlash. Health research has become a casualty of the battle between the sexes.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the way to Las Vegas to collect his Teamsters endorsement on Monday, Al Gore made a stop at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas to deliver his latest smarmy valentine to the female voter. In an appearance at a women's health event, Gore pledged to fight for legislation that would give new protections to women enrolled in managed-care plans, forcing HMOs to pay for mastectomies, routine OB/GYN services and hospital stays of at least 48 hours for breast cancer surgery. </p><p>Women's healthcare, on the face of it, looks like the kind of motherhood-and-apple-pie cause that no reasonable or decent person could oppose. It probably has more bipartisan support than any other "women's issue." Eager to woo women back, the Bush campaign is also portraying George W. as the <i>real</i> women's health champion, pointing out that as governor of Texas he signed into law many of the same benefits Gore is now promising. But this seemingly wholesome women's crusade has a dark underside. It has used fictions and half-truths to polarize the sexes and promote fear and resentment among women. Combining elements of radical feminism and traditional paternalism, it has turned healthcare into a battleground for gender politics in which men, too, are now vying for the title of victim. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/09/20/womens_health/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/09/20/womens_health/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>They&#8217;re no angels</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/08/26/wnba_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/08/26/wnba_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/sports/2000/08/26/wnba</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is women's basketball a kinder, gentler game? The WNBA shows that women aren't nicer than men -- but they aren't better, either.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Once again, the New York Liberty and the Houston Comets are facing off in the National Women's Basketball Association championship finals, as they have three out of the past four years. And so far the only mystery has been whether the Comets -- the overwhelming favorites -- would win the three-game series in two games or three. (Houston beat New York 59-52 in Game 1 Thursday night.) </p><p>But the debate over the WNBA may be even more interesting than the playoffs. The league remains a battlefield for gender politics, and here, the arguments are as familiar as a Houston-New York championship series. </p><p>To the WNBA's detractors -- from anonymous Web surfers who post abusive messages in women's basketball chat rooms, to many sports radio talk-show hosts and a few conservative commentators -- the "league of their own" is an insidious exercise in political correctness, an attempt to shove a ridiculous pseudo-sport down the throats of the American public in the name of gender equity. After <a target="new" href="http://slate.msn.com/tagteam/entries/00-08-21_88505.asp">Slate,</a> for instance, published an article praising the WNBA's dynasty, the Houston Comets, one response posted on the site's message boards derided the Comets' trophies as "glorified doorstops" while another rather graphically claimed that it was better to be "de-balled with a rusty spoon" than to watch a WNBA game. Last year, Debbie Schlussel, a columnist for the Jewish World Review, sneered that the WNBA should really stand for "Weird Nuisance Brought on America." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/08/26/wnba_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/08/26/wnba_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The anti-child revolt</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/07/31/anti_child/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/07/31/anti_child/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2000/07/31/anti_child</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You people make me sick.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Meet the latest addition to our national roster of victim groups: People without children. </p><p>The <a href="/mwt/feature/2000/04/06/no_kids/index.html/">revolt</a> of the "child-free" has been getting quite a bit of attention, due mainly to the publication of <a href="/mwt/feature/2000/04/06/baby_boon/index.html">"The Baby Boon: How Family-Friendly America Cheats the Childless"</a> by journalist Elinor Burkett, a manifesto of sorts for this fledgling movement. The premier organization of the "child-free," called No Kidding!, has grown from two chapters to 47 in five years. Most recently, the anti-child/anti-parent backlash is the subject of a long cover story by Lisa Belkin in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine. </p><p>The angry nonparents believe they are being treated as second-class citizens in a "procreation-obsessed" America. They feel shafted by the tax code, with all the dependent deductions and child-care credits, and by working-parent benefits such as family leave and on-site day care. They gripe about a lot of things: having to pick up the slack for "child-burdened" co-workers; enduring the noise of squalling kids in restaurants; the unfair privilege of parking spaces reserved for pregnant women and parents with babies or toddlers; inappropriate questioning of their choice not to have children. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/07/31/anti_child/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/07/31/anti_child/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Team players or tools of the patriarchy?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/07/06/crusade/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/07/06/crusade/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2000/07/06/crusade</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Women often are supplying the muscle behind the fathers' rights movement.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When Anne Mitchell talks about her life, it sounds like the kind of "plucky woman succeeds against all odds" story that could get made into an inspirational movie for Lifetime, the women's cable TV channel. At the age of 22, our heroine flees an abusive marriage with a small child in tow. She works in a series of jobs, from selling wholesale pharmaceuticals to managing a dentist's office, while receiving little or no child support. She also goes to college, graduates summa cum laude and gets accepted into Stanford Law School. Upon getting her law degree, she chooses to forgo obscenely lucrative job offers in order to go into family law and become a crusader for those victimized by the system. </p><p>There's only one catch: Mitchell's crusade is on behalf of fathers. </p><p>Indeed, even the way Mitchell (now 42 and the happily married mother of a 2-year-old boy) tells her own story may be startling to those used to the Lifetime formula. While she says that she was a battered wife, she refuses to cast herself as a victim and her first husband as a villain; in her view, he was a troubled young man with a drinking problem who has since done a great deal to turn his life around. She is careful to point out that she gave up child support voluntarily, because at the time she was doing much better than her ex-husband -- who was remarried with two kids and a third on the way, and had been laid off from his job. Mitchell also stresses that her ex is a loving father who has always had a strong relationship with their daughter, and that she has always encouraged this relationship. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/07/06/crusade/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/07/06/crusade/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s payback time</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/06/21/sommers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/06/21/sommers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2000/06/21/sommers</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In "The War Against Boys," author Christina Hoff Sommers claims that unfair programs to empower girls have taken a toll on boys.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>I</b>n the early 1990s, in the midst of a general revival of interest in feminist issues, there was a proliferation of reports that girls, victimized practically from birth, were being robbed of their self-esteem by a patriarchal culture and shortchanged by sexist schools. </p><p>The American Association of University Women and the Ms. Foundation sounded the alarm with largely uncritical media coverage and support from female-friendly politicians. Mary Pipher's "Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls," which lamented that "the selves of girls ... crash and burn" in our "girl-poisoning culture," became a bestseller. Take Our Daughters to Work Day became a big hit; and Congress boosted funding for programs to combat gender bias in education. Some school districts experimented with single-sex classes and even all-girl schools as an answer to the inequities supposedly pervading coed classrooms. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/06/21/sommers/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/06/21/sommers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The mama lion at the gate</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/06/12/gatekeeping/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/06/12/gatekeeping/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fatherhood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2000/06/12/gatekeeping</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maternal chauvinism is a dad's greatest obstacle to parental parity.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>"S</b>ay Da-da," a male voice off-camera urges a baby seen through the lens of a camcorder. </p><p>"Ma-ma," gurgles the baby. </p><p>"Say Da-da." </p><p>"Ma-ma," insists the baby. </p><p>A tag line appears at the bottom of the screen: "Baby's first word. Another great reason for being a woman." </p><p>This recent commercial for Oxygen, the female-oriented interactive cable channel and Web site, prompted some angry posts from offended dads on Oxygen.com message boards. Were they being too sensitive? Not if you consider that the "baby's first words" commercial is part of a barrage of cultural messages telling fathers that no matter what, they're always going to be in second place in their children's emotional lives. What's more, it looks like women are taking gleeful pleasure in men's second-class status. For a gender reversal, try to imagine a commercial making fun of a woman's helpless attempts to pump gas until a guy comes to the rescue. </p><p>From a woman's point of view, the Oxygen commercial might look like innocent fun, a way to make women feel good about themselves and about the special things they have in common. Yet in the end, this warm and fuzzy tribute to womanhood may not be so good for women, either. It appeals to an attitude -- call it maternal chauvinism -- that helps perpetuate the unequal division of labor at home and holds women back in the workplace. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/06/12/gatekeeping/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/06/12/gatekeeping/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sexism and the death chamber</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/05/04/death_7/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/05/04/death_7/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2000 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2000/05/04/death</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chivalry lives when a woman must die.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>O</b>n Tuesday night in Varner, Ark., 28-year-old Christina Marie Riggs was executed for the 1997 murders of her two small children. She was given a lethal injection of potassium chloride, the drug she had originally planned to use to kill her children. (She suffocated them after a botched attempt of the drugging plan.)</p><p>Riggs, a former nurse, was put to death despite pleas for her life from anti-death-penalty groups including Amnesty International and the <a target="new" href="http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n050200a.html">American Civil Libertes Union.</a> In fact, there was little difference between the execution of Riggs and the other 28 executions carried out in the United States so far this year, except that Riggs, who said she wanted to die to be with her "babies," had refused to appeal her sentence or to seek clemency from Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.</p><p>And yet her death was much bigger news.</p><p>The cause for intense public soul-searching and beating of breasts was not the nature of Riggs' crime or her wish to die. It was her gender. It was, for all intents and purposes, a demonstration of garden-variety sexism. And this isn't the first time our hypocrisy has been blatantly displayed.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/05/04/death_7/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/05/04/death_7/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Elian should stay in the U.S.</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/03/24/elian_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/03/24/elian_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cuba]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/24/elian</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Growing up as "state property" in the Soviet Union convinced me that freedom is as crucial as a father&#039;s love.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>F</b>rom the first days of the sad saga of <a href = "/news/feature/2000/01/15/cuba/index.html">Elian Gonzalez</a> -- which may yet drag on for a while, despite a judge's ruling Tuesday denying an asylum hearing for the 6-year-old Cuban boy -- I have followed the story with profound ambivalence.  My mixed feelings undoubtedly have to do with the fact that I was born in the Soviet Union and lived there until the age of 16.</p><p>Sometimes I try to imagine myself in Elian's place.  Suppose my mother had tried to spirit my 6-year-old self out of Russia and died in the escape, and I had ended up somewhere in the West with relatives I barely knew.  Of course I would have wanted to be back with my father and my grandmother.</p><p>But I also know something about growing up under communism.  I wasn't much older than Elian when I already knew that if I told anyone about the things my parents said at home -- for instance, that Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, was not really the greatest human being who ever lived (as we were taught at school), or that the Soviet Union was not really a shining beacon for all humankind -- mommy and daddy would go to jail.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/03/24/elian_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/03/24/elian_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When liberals lie about guns</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/03/13/guns_9/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/03/13/guns_9/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gun Control]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/13/guns</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Zealots are polarizing the debate over how to stop violent crime -- and whether firearms can help.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>T</b>he shooting of 6-year-old <a href = "/news/col/horo/2000/03/06/killing/index.html">Kayla Rolland</a> by a fellow first-grader in Mount Morris Township, Mich., set off a new round of complaints about the scourge of <a href = "/politics2000/directory/issues/gun_control/index.html">guns,</a> reviving the cry of "How many more children must die?" In the standard media version, the gun debate becomes a stark morality play. The forces of good are trying to protect us, and especially our children, from a human-made pestilence that takes an awful toll on our land; the forces of evil are exploiting Americans' atavistic love affair with guns for political and/or monetary gain. But is it really that simple?</p><p>There is little doubt that the much-maligned gun lobby has engaged in some extreme rhetoric and has opposed sensible restrictions backed by most Americans (including gun owners), such as waiting periods and mandatory background checks for handgun purchases. But it is equally true that many members of the chattering classes feel such a visceral aversion toward guns that they are inclined to accept shaky anti-gun arguments and to disregard any evidence that, perish the thought, Charlton Heston may sometimes have a point.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/03/13/guns_9/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/03/13/guns_9/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brit&#039;s-eye view</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/02/19/sex_5/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/02/19/sex_5/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Love and Sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/2000/02/19/sex</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The specter of American gender extremism is making ripples across the Atlantic.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>I</b>n England, the gender wars are often viewed as a peculiar form of "dementia Americana." There is a common, and not entirely groundless, belief among Europeans that Americans have a propensity to take even good ideas to absurd extremes: Convince the Yanks that working women should be protected from sexual extortion by the boss, and the next thing you know they're outlawing lascivious glances at the office.</p><p>And yet two days before Valentine's Day, here we were at a conference in London titled "Sex Wars," discussing such familiar problems as the politicization of the personal, the demonization of men and paranoia about sex and relationships.</p><p>The conference, held at the Institute of Contemporary Arts just a short walk from Buckingham Palace -- itself the site of some famous sex wars in recent memory -- was organized by a discussion/debate group called the Maverick Club and the libertarian-leaning, iconoclastic monthly <a target="new" href="http://www.informinc.co.uk">LM</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/02/19/sex_5/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/02/19/sex_5/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Love is just a moment</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/02/05/love_4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/02/05/love_4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2000 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Love and Sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/2000/02/05/love</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Forget about finding Mr. Right. Finding oneself is more exciting than romance. These celebrated feminists sound more like hosts of "The View" than sisters of the struggle.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"<b>G</b>ood evening, and welcome to our love night here at the Y," the announcer onstage crooned into the microphone. Somewhere in the packed auditorium, a female voice let out a whoop. "Love night" was a panel titled "What's Love Got to Do With It?: Women Speak Out on Intimate Relationships at the Beginning of the New Century," held Tuesday at the 92nd Street Y, New York's venerable cultural center.</p><p>The speakers -- "Each in her own way represents today's woman," we were told by the Y program director -- were Gloria Steinem (probably accustomed by now to being introduced as someone who "needs no introduction"), feminist professor and prolific author bell hooks, poet and naturalist Diane Ackerman and short-story writer Amy Bloom. Despite the presence of Steinem and hooks, there was surprisingly little in the way of gender politics. Hooks, probably the most prominent African-American feminist in the public arena today, did warn at one point -- after disclosing that she feels "panicked" when bright, talented women students marry at 22 or 23 -- that "Patriarchy hasn't gone away; it hasn't changed; though because of feminism we have more freedoms within it."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/02/05/love_4/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/02/05/love_4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Out with the old and out with the new</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/01/26/feminism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/01/26/feminism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Violence Against Women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coupling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2000/01/26/feminism</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Feminism of every stripe has failed. It&#039;s time for a gender equality movement.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>T</b>he 20th century was, among other things, the century of feminism. For the first time in history, the belief that women have the same rights and the same worth as men is not the vision of a few radicals but the cultural norm in a large proportion of human societies. In the United States, women's gains have been, in many ways, especially impressive. Yet one would have to be a wild-eyed optimist to insist that the gender revolution of the past 30 years has been an unqualified success.</p><p>"Modern feminism, until recently at least," the late social critic Christopher Lasch wrote in a 1993 essay, "promised not to intensify sexual warfare but to bring about a new era of sexual peace in which women and men could meet each other as equals, not as antagonists." If so, its promise certainly hasn't been fulfilled. Harmony between the sexes sometimes seems more elusive than ever. It's no accident that a perennial bestseller of the 1990s was a book built on the concept that the problems between men and women stem from forgetting that we're creatures from different planets.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/01/26/feminism/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/01/26/feminism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hitting below the belt</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Easy to get, hellish to deal with, restraining orders have become the ultimate weapon in domestic disputes.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>O</b>ne day three years ago, Harry Stewart, a lay minister in Weymouth,<br /> Mass., and a divorced father of two, was bringing his 5-year-old<br /> son back from a scheduled visit.  He walked the boy to the front door of<br /> the mother's apartment building and opened the door to let him in.</p><p>For this offense, 44-year-old Stewart is now serving a six-month sentence in<br /> the Norfolk House of Correction.</p><p>Stewart was convicted in June of violating a <a href="/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/spike/index.html">restraining order</a> that<br /> prohibited him from exiting his car near his ex-wife's home.  He got a<br /> suspended sentence conditional on completing a batterers treatment<br /> program, in which participants must sign a statement taking responsibility<br /> for their violence.</p><p>That was something Stewart refused to do. He has never been charged with spousal assault and insists that the only violence in his marriage was by his ex-wife against him. (While his former wife told reporters that Stewart was dangerously unstable, her examples -- that he had watched "prison movies" with his 8- and 6-year-old sons and promised to send them some live caterpillars to grow into butterflies -- seem shocking only in their innocuousness.)  On Aug. 18, he appeared in Quincy District Court and again declared that he was not a batterer and would not enroll in any program that required him to admit to being one.  Stewart was ordered to start serving his jail term immediately.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
